Question About Seventh Day Adventist

[AzA]

It is interesting to note that this concern did not die with the last generation of SDAs. In fact, the SDA denomination's position on make-up, jewelry, dress, diet, caffeine, alcohol, dancing, music and entertainment has not changed (although there are individual SDAs whose views may have changed). Many (if not most) modern SDAs claim to follow the SDA denomination's position on these matters.

Yes, I know some 19yos who are very gungho about the separation of the sexes, the primacy of the KJV, and the eeeeeeevil of the world. Without exception, they've been slurping up material from the Joe Crews and Sam Pipim section of the church, material which my mother's generation grew out of at least 15 years ago. Depending on where you are in the world, and what the concerns of your local congregations are, approaches to these things vary.

When I visit my grandmother, I know what to expect from the local churches in her area. Looking at the church worldwide, there are very traditional and conservative groups who have been fed on the prevailing dogma of the church circa 1940. This is not hearsay on my part; I lived in an area where this was and remains the case. One local church is also like that.

But that area is not the entire church. The Spectrum community, for instance, represents a very different demographic. So does the A-Today community. So does another local church. It has always been a mistake to view one subgroup as representative of the whole, especially when official documents are designed to accommodate differences.

The FB on creation did not insist on 24hr days for a reason; motions to include that insistence were made and rejected. Overall, I find that people unaware of the range in the denomination are inclined to make broad statements about it. This is why I have always said there is variety, and for any large organization that's reasonable.

I do object to the gross presumption of someone else telling me what I am.

 

[Cribstyl]

LoveNPeace,

I hope you get your questions answered. Some people get carried away as if the bible is option B.

CRIB

 

[LoveandPeace25]

Thank you Crib.

***
"One major issue between SDA and other protestant denominations are what is called "the New Covenant". "

I looked into this. From what I could understand, this basically states that all seven days are holy days? Is that correct? A lot of what I read went right over my head. Can anyone provide any clarification?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Yes, I know some 19yos who are very gungho about the separation of the sexes, the primacy of the KJV, and the eeeeeeevil of the world. Without exception, they've been slurping up material from the Joe Crews and Sam Pipim section of the church, material which my mother's generation grew out of at least 15 years ago. Depending on where you are in the world, and what the concerns of your local congregations are, approaches to these things vary.

Yes, I have noticed this trend as well.

When I visit my grandmother, I know what to expect from the local churches in her area. Looking at the church worldwide, there are very traditional and conservative groups who have been fed on the prevailing dogma of the church circa 1940. This is not hearsay on my part; I lived in an area where this was and remains the case. One local church is also like that.

In my neck of the woods, all of the local SDA churches are like that. However, I have not always lived in the midwest. My wife and I attended a more progressive SDA church when we lived on the east coast. I am aware that there are exceptions to the rule.

But that area is not the entire church. The Spectrum community, for instance, represents a very different demographic. So does the A-Today community. So does another local church. It has always been a mistake to view one subgroup as representative of the whole, especially when official documents are designed to accommodate differences.

My comments have focused primarily of the teachings of the SDA denomination. This is hardly a subgroup. Although I agree with you that there are subgroups that are not in agreement with every position taken by the denomination, I have noticed that the denomination has not recanted any of its long-standing teachings.

I do object to the gross presumption of someone else telling me what I am.

I don't blame you. I would object too.

I would not presume to tell you what you believe or who you are. In fact, I do not know you at all.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Thank you Crib.

***
"One major issue between SDA and other protestant denominations are what is called "the New Covenant". "

I looked into this. From what I could understand, this basically states that all seven days are holy days? Is that correct? A lot of what I read went right over my head. Can anyone provide any clarification?

If you have the time, Hebrews 8, 2 Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-5 and Romans 7 are quite helpful.

Hebrews 8 tells us that God made a new covenant with Israel. He did so because Israel was unable to keep the terms of the old covenant. The fault was with the people. The new covenant is not like the old and is built on better promises. The old covenant was fading and becoming obsolete.

2 Corinthians 3 tells us that, in the new covenant, the letters engraved in stones are the ministry that brings death and that, when compared with the letters engraved on stones, the ministry of the Spirit is more glorious and lasting and brings life. Those who rely on the law have a veil covering them. Only in Jesus Christ is this veil removed.

Galatians 3 tells us that the whole world is a prisoner of sin; that the law was given 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come and that, now that the Seed has come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster of the law.

Galatians 4 tells us that we are not to return to the principles of observing days and months and seasons and years. It makes a comparison between Hagar and the covenant that was from Sinai and it reminds us that God gave the command to get rid of Hagar.

Galatians 5 tells us that we are no longer to be bound by slavery.

Romans 7 tells us that we are to die to the law so that we may be joined with the Spirit.

In contrast with these principles, the SDA denomination teaches that the law is the basis of the seal of God and the mark of the beast. The SDA denomination teaches that sabbath keeping is the great final test that will determine who is of God and who is not of God. The SDA denomination warns of an impending Sunday law in which only sabbatarians are recipients of the time of trouble described in Revelation.

The SDA denomination does not confirm that we are to die to the law or that the letters engraved in stones are the ministry that brings death. On the contrary, the SDA denomination elevates the law to the point that it directly impacts one's ability to maintain salvation.

The new covenant--like God's grace--is not built on law.

BFA

 

[Cribstyl]

Thank you Crib.

***

"One major issue between SDA and other protestant denominations are what is called "the New Covenant". "

I looked into this. From what I could understand, this basically states that all seven days are holy days? Is that correct? A lot of what I read went right over my head. Can anyone provide any clarification?

First of all, what is called the "Old Covenant" was made between God and the Children of Israel. The people's part to keep were; laws, commandments, statutes, and ordinance, which were given through the hand of Moses.


In the coarse of time God promised a New Covenant. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The fact that God promised a New Covenant unlike the one made with their fathers is reason to understand that God would not put the same covenant on your heart this time arround, but that's what SDA claim and believe. This is why they keep sabbath.
As I study with them, I see how they teach by associating the word "law' and "commandments" with the ten Commandments at times when the subject is what God is commanding through His apostles.

The book of Roman teaches us about all the key issue from creation. it teaches us about the change of covenant by telling us "we're not under the law".

The argument made by members are if you're not under the law, means you can steal, kill or commit adutry, etc.
The truth is, Christ has given us what He calls a new commandment. This commandment demands that we love one another. Love fulfills the law.


When Jesus said that "not a jot or tittle will pass from the law" He is saying that all that is written in the books of the law will come to pass exactly.

CRIB

 

[LoveandPeace25]

Thank you guys so much for the clarification. Byfaith, I will study those scriptures, thank you.

The guys who I am dating invited me to his church this Saturday. I am a little nervous. He said that his church is fairly progressive and the members are mainly younger people. I am still nervous.

 

[AzA]

The guys who I am dating invited me to his church this Saturday. I am a little nervous. He said that his church is fairly progressive and the members are mainly younger people. I am still nervous.

New environments can be both strange and nerve-wracking but it sounds like you are comfortable enough together to be honest and understanding about how each other feels. I'm glad to hear that; that's part of a good friendship.

I wish you guys all the best, individually, as a couple, and in the context of your spiritual development. And wherever you end up, I trust that you'll keep learning all you need to know to live a fulfilled and fulfilling life.

Peace.

 

[sentipente]

Thank you guys so much for the clarification. Byfaith, I will study those scriptures, thank you.

The guys who I am dating invited me to his church this Saturday. I am a little nervous. He said that his church is fairly progressive and the members are mainly younger people. I am still nervous.

Don't be nervous. You will find that they are nice people. Don't let the naysayers on this board confuse you.

Bring back a report.

 

[Sophia7]

It is interesting to note that this concern did not die with the last generation of SDAs. In fact, the SDA denomination's position on make-up, jewelry, dress, diet, caffeine, alcohol, dancing, music and entertainment has not changed (although there are individual SDAs whose views may have changed). Many (if not most) modern SDAs claim to follow the SDA denomination's position on these matters.

The official NAD policy on wedding bands has changed, however. Members are officially allowed to wear them although many traditional Adventists still object to that change in policy even though it's been in place for more than 20 years. Many conferences now even allow pastors and their spouses to wear wedding bands; our conference changed its policy on that just a couple of years before my husband resigned from the ministry.

 

[Sophia7]

Thank you guys so much for the clarification. Byfaith, I will study those scriptures, thank you.

The guys who I am dating invited me to his church this Saturday. I am a little nervous. He said that his church is fairly progressive and the members are mainly younger people. I am still nervous.

How did it go?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The official NAD policy on wedding bands has changed, however. Members are officially allowed to wear them although many traditional Adventists still object to that change in policy even though it's been in place for more than 20 years. Many conferences now even allow pastors and their spouses to wear wedding bands; our conference changed its policy on that just a couple of years before my husband resigned from the ministry.

The official NAD policy on the wider topic of jewelry has not changed.

BFA

 

[Sophia7]

The official NAD policy on the wider topic of jewelry has not changed.

BFA

No, just pointing out one specific aspect that has changed, and I think that the Adventist Church created some doctrinal ambiguity by instituting that NAD policy since one type of jewelry is officially recognized as acceptable but not others.

I think it's also fair to point out that many prospective members are not given any instruction regarding jewelry. It depends on the pastor, but many Adventist pastors don't even require people to affirm all of the 28 FBs. They are officially supposed to, but the reality is that many of them do not. Often they don't say much about Ellen White either; they may mention that the Adventist Church teaches that she exhibited the gift of prophecy, but often they deemphasize that and tell people that they don't have to agree with that to become an Adventist, that they can read some of her books later if they want to and see what they think.

Besides that, FB 22's statement on jewelry would not be clear to a new member without further indoctrination:

While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit.
​

To a non-SDA or a new SDA (or a progressive SDA), that could mean that the focus should not be on external appearance, not necessarily that all jewelry is prohibited. And if that person attends a progressive SDA church--or even a somewhat traditional one with lots of younger members--and sees people wearing jewelry, he or she would not necessarily even know that the SDA Church officially takes a stance against all jewelry except wedding bands.

So, no, the official doctrine on the wider topic of jewelry hasn't changed, but I'm just saying that this is one Adventist teaching that is not at all evident or enforced or even taught in many local SDA churches (at least in the U.S.) anymore, and I think that the NAD change in policy has contributed to a lack of clarity on the broader issue within Adventism.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

No, just pointing out one specific aspect that has changed, and I think that the Adventist Church created some doctrinal ambiguity by instituting that NAD policy since one type of jewelry is officially recognized as acceptable but not others.

I think it's also fair to point out that many prospective members are not given any instruction regarding jewelry. It depends on the pastor, but many Adventist pastors don't even require people to affirm all of the 28 FBs. They are officially supposed to, but the reality is that many of them do not. Often they don't say much about Ellen White either; they may mention that the Adventist Church teaches that she exhibited the gift of prophecy, but often they deemphasize that and tell people that they don't have to agree with that to become an Adventist, that they can read some of her books later if they want to and see what they think.

Besides that, FB 22's statement on jewelry would not be clear to a new member without further indoctrination:

While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit.
​

To a non-SDA or a new SDA (or a progressive SDA), that could mean that the focus should not be on external appearance, not necessarily that all jewelry is prohibited. And if that person attends a progressive SDA church--or even a somewhat traditional one with lots of younger members--and sees people wearing jewelry, he or she would not necessarily even know that the SDA Church officially takes a stance against all jewelry except wedding bands.

So, no, the official doctrine on the wider topic of jewelry hasn't changed, but I'm just saying that this is one Adventist teaching that is not at all evident or enforced or even taught in many local SDA churches (at least in the U.S.) anymore, and I think that the NAD change in policy has contributed to a lack of clarity on the broader issue within Adventism.

We are certainly in agreement that there is confusion within some areas of Adventism regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on any number of issues. Based on the area of the country where you live, examples of confusion might include:

(1) Can I bring meat to a church potluck?
(2) Can I wear earrings to church?
(3) Is it acceptable to drink a caffeinated Pepsi at a church function?
(4) Can I go to a restaurant after church?
(5) Can I hold a church meeting in the sanctuary or must it be held in a side room?
(6) Can I serve a beer to a fellow church member who visits me in my home?
(7) Can I play secular music during a Pathfinder scating party?
(8) Can my children go swimming on a sabbath afternoon?
(9) Can our sabbath school class take a field trip to a museum on a sabbath afternoon? Must the tickets be prepaid?
(10) Is any make-up OK? How much make-up is too much?
​

I will withhold any statements suggesting that the SDA denomination has changed until such point that the SDA denomination officially confirms that it wants to change. Other than the wedding ring example, I am not aware of many examples of an official change in direction.

At the end of the day, I wonder why a denomination wishes to be the conscience of its membership on such matters.

BFA

 

[Sophia7]

We are certainly in agreement that there is confusion within some areas of Adventism regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on any number of issues. Based on the area of the country where you live, examples of confusion might include:

(1) Can I bring meat to a church potluck?
(2) Can I wear earrings to church?
(3) Is it acceptable to drink a caffeinated Pepsi at a church function?
(4) Can I go to a restaurant after church?
(5) Can I hold a church meeting in the sanctuary or must it be held in a side room?
(6) Can I serve a beer to a fellow church member who visits me in my home?
(7) Can I play secular music during a Pathfinder scating party?
(8) Can my children go swimming on a sabbath afternoon?
(9) Can our sabbath school class take a field trip to a museum on a sabbath afternoon? Must the tickets be prepaid?
(10) Is any make-up OK? How much make-up is too much?
​

I will withhold any statements suggesting that the SDA denomination has changed until such point that the SDA denomination officially confirms that it wants to change. Other than the wedding ring example, I am not aware of many examples of an official change in direction.

At the end of the day, I wonder why a denomination wishes to be the conscience of its membership on such matters.

BFA

I agree that there are few examples of official change. I guess I'm just wondering how much that matters practically. It seems to me that the denomination is not very effective at maintaining doctrinal unity in practice since so many Adventist members don't care about upholding the official beliefs, including Ellen White as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth," or they have their own interpretations of the 28 FBs, and so many new members are not being thoroughly indoctrinated in the official teachings.

When I was an Adventist, I didn't follow everything that EGW wrote; I picked and chose, as most Adventists that I know do. I didn't adhere to the 28 FBs just because it was the official denominational "creed" either; in fact, there were some teachings that I had always had issues with (including jewelry) although I considered them minor until I noticed the contextual problems with the IJ.

Individual Adventists and individual local churches have been changing in many areas, and although the denomination may not ever change officially--in fact, I wouldn't count on it, and that's part of the reason that I left--they don't do much about the pluralism either, other than promoting EGW's writings more aggressively. I don't think that the denomination should be the conscience of its membership on things like makeup and jewelry and music and diet, but I guess I just don't see them trying too hard anymore, despite the official teachings.

 

[dragNdrop]

I thank the SDA for their striving to potray Christian purity though. I'll always miss those set up life standards of the SDA. In other churches people pay little or no attention to such standards.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I thank the SDA for their striving to potray Christian purity though. I'll always miss those set up life standards of the SDA. In other churches people pay little or no attention to such standards.

Such standards are not God-given. They are of a human creation. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I agree that there are few examples of official change. I guess I'm just wondering how much that matters practically. It seems to me that the denomination is not very effective at maintaining doctrinal unity in practice since so many Adventist members don't care about upholding the official beliefs, including Ellen White as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth," or they have their own interpretations of the 28 FBs, and so many new members are not being thoroughly indoctrinated in the official teachings.

In reality, I have seen few SDA churches (even among the more progressive varieties) that have escaped the guilt associated with not fully living the teachings of the SDA denomination. In far too many places, those teachings still have influence, even if certain individual SDAs claim that they do not. In too many places, the little red books, the church manual and the 28 fundies are the basis for settling differences of opinion.

When I was an Adventist, I didn't follow everything that EGW wrote; I picked and chose, as most Adventists that I know do.

And did you ever experience guilt, either from within or from without? Now that you know such guilt is unnecessary, how has this changed your perspective on your former experiences?

I didn't adhere to the 28 FBs just because it was the official denominational "creed" either; in fact, there were some teachings that I had always had issues with (including jewelry) although I considered them minor until I noticed the contextual problems with the IJ.

At the end of the day, if another SDA had objections regarding your use of jewelry and wished to have you banished from church offices (or some other similar punishment), who would have the stronger leg to stand on? You? The other SDA?

Individual Adventists and individual local churches have been changing in many areas, and although the denomination may not ever change officially--in fact, I wouldn't count on it, and that's part of the reason that I left--they don't do much about the pluralism either, other than promoting EGW's writings more aggressively.

If anything has changed, it has amounted to little more than window dressing. Armstrong's church changed. The SDA denomination has not changed, at least not in a way that restores the SDA denomination to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't think that the denomination should be the conscience of its membership on things like makeup and jewelry and music and diet, but I guess I just don't see them trying too hard anymore, despite the official teachings.

I'd invite you to walk into any SDA potluck dinner wearing make-up, jewelry and a short skirt and bring with you a 2-liter bottle of Coke and a ham salad. You'll quickly learn how much has changed.

BFA

 

[Sophia7]

In reality, I have seen few SDA churches (even among the more progressive varieties) that have escaped the guilt associated with not fully living the teachings of the SDA denomination. In far too many places, those teachings still have influence, even if certain individual SDAs claim that they do not. In too many places, the little red books, the church manual and the 28 fundies are the basis for settling differences of opinion.

I disagree. I've seen many churches such as you describe, but I've also seen many SDA churches where people really didn't care about makeup and jewelry and stuff like that and where I heard very little quoting of Ellen White. Things like the Sabbath are much more important to most Adventists. In fact, several of our pastor friends don't care about EGW or the IJ, and they don't teach them to their members, nor do they make a big deal out of the lifestyle things. They are much more concerned about our change of beliefs on the Sabbath than anything else. The other things just don't matter to a lot of Adventists. Even in my home church, which we visited a couple of months ago while we were on vacation, all people asked us about was the Sabbath.

I guess my experience in Adventism was different from yours. I didn't grow up in a very traditional Adventist environment. My parents didn't read EGW at all, didn't care if we wore makeup and jewelry, went out to eat on Sabbath, etc. I also knew some more traditional Adventists, but their lifestyle was pretty much foreign to me. It was a big culture shock for me when I went to an SDA college and then even more so when we moved to the traditional churches where hubby pastored, where people were very EGW-adherent.

And did you ever experience guilt, either from within or from without? Now that you know such guilt is unnecessary, how has this changed your perspective on your former experiences?

I didn't feel guilty for doing things that I didn't believe were wrong. I guess I never viewed the SDA Church or the 28 FBs as my conscience on such matters. However, I did avoid doing certain things while we were in the more traditional churches so as not to offend our members. There were times when I resented having to live up to other people's expectations, especially toward the end of hubby's time in ministry. If I hadn't been a pastor's wife, that wouldn't have been such an issue for me because I wouldn't have felt obligated to do things or not do things if I didn't agree with them.

At the end of the day, if another SDA had objections regarding your use of jewelry and wished to have you banished from church offices (or some other similar punishment), who would have the stronger leg to stand on? You? The other SDA?

I didn't wear jewelry while we were in the ministry because it would have been a stumbling block to our members in the traditional churches. It would have caused them to focus on that rather than on what we were trying to teach them. That included wedding bands, which we wore only after we left, even though it would have been allowed by our conference at that time. Many of our members opposed the NAD policy. I did wear makeup, and no one ever criticized me for that. However, even in those churches, many of the younger members wore jewelry, and while the traditional members disapproved, they didn't try to censure them or block them from leadership positions--probably because they were just happy to be able to get the younger members involved in the church; the majority of our members in that area were over 50.

If anything has changed, it has amounted to little more than window dressing. Armstrong's church changed. The SDA denomination has not changed, at least not in a way that restores the SDA denomination to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No, the denomination hasn't changed, and I doubt that it will. If it does, I don't think that it will be from the top down like the WWCG but from the bottom up. Many individuals and local churches have changed. I've seen it during my lifetime; my own home church has changed the way they react to people who wear jewelry, for example. And the denomination doesn't have much control over it; in fact, they tolerate pluralism because they don't want people to leave Adventism, especially the younger generations.

I'd invite you to walk into any SDA potluck dinner wearing make-up, jewelry and a short skirt and bring with you a 2-liter bottle of Coke and a ham salad. You'll quickly learn how much has changed.

BFA

I've seen things like that happen. I've been to Adventist churches where people were very gracious when something was brought that was unacceptable according to Adventist doctrine (ham sandwiches, shrimp, etc.). I've even seen Adventists put such things out on the serving tables so as not to offend the person who brought it. People were generally pretty good at recognizing things like that and avoiding them if they wanted to.

As I said, I guess my experience in Adventism was different from yours. I've seen the traditional side of Adventism, including some very extreme historic Adventists, but I've also seen a diversity of beliefs that exists and is even tolerated in many places within Adventism.

Even in one of our most traditional churches, we had several regularly attending guests who made it clear that they didn't agree with everything that Adventism taught, so they would never become members for that reason, but they came just for the fellowship. Although I'm sure that our members hoped that they would someday changed their minds, they were respectful of their beliefs and disagreements and didn't treat them like inferiors or lesser Christians.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Things like the Sabbath are much more important to most Adventists.

I agree with you on this point.

In fact, several of our pastor friends don't care about EGW or the IJ, and they don't teach them to their members, nor do they make a big deal out of the lifestyle things.

I agree on this point as well. However, in their congregations, you will likely find individual SDAs who carry a torch. That has been my experience, even in the more progressive congregations.

I didn't grow up in a very traditional Adventist environment.

Although I did, my life as an employee of the SDA denomination led me to places that were far more progressive. However, even in the more progressive settings, I found the guilt messages.

I didn't wear jewelry while we were in the ministry because it would have been a stumbling block to our members in the traditional churches. It would have caused them to focus on that rather than on what we were trying to teach them. That included wedding bands, which we wore only after we left, even though it would have been allowed by our conference at that time. Many of our members opposed the NAD policy.

I did wear makeup, and no one ever criticized me for that. However, even in those churches, many of the younger members wore jewelry, and while the traditional members disapproved,

These are the guilt messages I was describing. They don't have to come from the pastor. Most often, they come from the individual congregants.

I guess my experience in Adventism was different from yours.

I suspect that this is true and I am glad.

BFA